I'm thinking of taking some courses at UNM as part of their non-degree program. I got the idea first from Molly Padgett, who is otherwise not a warehouse of ideas. It seems that I may know what to go to grad school for, and it's something I would never have thought of: Anthropology, probably either Biological Anth. or Archaeology. It seems I'm fascinated by the reconstruction of human history and origins. It seems I might want to check this out with some courses.

This started, as my interests normally do, with regression. I was reading Arthur Toynbee's A Study of History when I realized that he wasn't ever going to slow down and tell me what that history was, so I looked for supplementary books. The library isn't very expansive in this field, for obvious reasons (hint St. John's doesn't study history and wants to suppress it hint), but I was able to find a reasonably thorough history of world civilizations. It was written in the early 70's, before some important dating techniques were discovered, but it would do. The first chapter was on prehistory; it contained mostly idle speculation about the mesolithic, and some moderately more informed speculation about the origin of agriculture. Since this is a period I know very little about, and it seemed that, whether or not this book thought so, it would give important insight into the origins of civilizations, I looked in the bibliography for that chapter. The library had a few of the books listed there, and the most general looked like Back of History, by William Howells.

Now Howells, as I was later to learn, was primarily a physical anthropoligst, specializing in prehumanity. And so he devoted more than half of the book to the question of human origins. Now, this book was written in 1953, practically at the beginning of our understanding of human origins. The "Piltdown Man" had only recently been revealed to be a hoax. There was still a different name (indeed multiple names) for each specimen of what is now called Homo Erectus that had been found (e.g. "Java Man", "Sinanthropus", "Pithecanthropus Erectus"). The !Kung San, who were described rather uncritically, were still referred to as Bushmen. Every stone tool was still assumed to be a weapon.

Despite all of this, the book made me realize that there's a hell of a lot I don't know about human evolution and prehistory. So I got a book by Richard Leakey; then one by DonaldJohanson, who discovered Lucy; then a 25-year-old collection of Scientific American Articles; then finally I received the interlibrary loan I'd requested, an up-to-date standard introductory textbook to Anthropology, Patterns in Prehistory.

Perhaps, since I've been studying these things for less than a month, I should wait to say that I might go to grad school for them. But I am certainly looking into non-degree classes at UNM in Anthropology, regardless.